Appeal No. 2000-1955
Application No. 08/857,055
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Nagahisa et al. (Nagahisa) 5,888,855 Mar. 30, 1999
Stanley Wolf Ph.D. and Richard N. Tauber Ph.D. (Wolf), 1 Silicon
Processing for the VLSI Era 427-28, 441 (Lattice Press, Sunset
Beach, CA 1986)
Admitted Prior Art, page 1
Appealed claims 1-10 and 16-28 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nagahisa in view of
Wolf and the Admitted Prior Art. The examiner's rejection under
the judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting over U.S. Patent No. 5,710,067 has been withdrawn (see
page 7 of Answer, first paragraph).
Upon careful consideration of the opposing arguments
presented on appeal, we find that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness for the claimed
invention. Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner's
rejection.
Since Nagahisa discloses a process of forming a silicon
nitride film on a semiconductor structure and treating the
silicon nitride film with a nitrous oxide plasma to oxidize a
surface portion of the silicon nitride film, the examiner reasons
that the referenced silicon nitride film and oxidized surface
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007